-
Welcome to RCCrawler Forums.
It looks like you're enjoying RCCrawler's Forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members, and much more. Register now!
Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.
BC-Brian build body or bodiless
- Thread starter Robbob
- Start date
It will be discussed in the Rules Committee without a doubt but I have no plans to lock it down as long as everything is civil.
I think the new spin that BC put on this could make serious waves in the chassis game. I actually really like it. I'm all for his new spin on it "thumbsup"
If the rule does not imply what I said, then I should be able to bolt on one of my old VW bodies to an existing non-bodiless chassis and call it a bodiless rig.
I should have said "major components".
I like it too, but it has exposed a pretty sizable hole in the rules.
JeremyH
I wanna be Dave
As long as it meets the length requirements and has the appropriate panels installed, I dont see what is wrong with that......
Then what are the major components of a bodiless chassis here?
We have never limited the material that a chassis could be made from before, but that seems to be the major issue here...
C*H*U*D
No idea what I'm doing
I do too. And at first I understood the arguments for it being legal as bodiless, until I learned more about the original intent behind "Structurally Complete".
I'd love to see more trucks like Brian's, but as bodied rigs. I don't want to see bodiless rules bent to make bodied rigs legal. If that is done, and Krawl's idea to unify the sizes goes through, I see both rigs vanishing and a new hybrid of the two becoming the norm.
I wasn't going to say anything more about this publicly, but I really feel if we lose the one true thing that separates body from bodiless, then one of the two will be gone. We're already having a hard time defining Brian's truck. Now we are tossing around ideas like
"We need to define a body"
"What is it made of"
"Does it have windows"
"Can you stand on it"
There is so much gray in there because nobody is reading the black and white.
be careful what you say...you know I'll do it. ;-)
Major components would be lower plates and cab if it is designed as such. Remove either and the chassis as a whole is incomplete and cannot physically be used.
JeremyH
I wanna be Dave
I dont see the original tubers (and therefore 1:1 tube buggys) as meeting that requirement. On most of those, you could shop off the "cab" and still have a functioning vehicle (as long as the driver ducks during a roll :ror: )....
Fishmaxx
I wanna be Dave
Sorry, but I fail to see where in 2.1.5 it says that the cab must be a supporting part of the structure...
▪ 2.1.5 - Bodiless vehicles: Must be a self-supporting, structurally complete, rigid frame. ...
Check
...The roof must be raised a minimum of 1” from the main chassis to resemble a cockpit. ...
Still no problems.
... The frame sides must be an overall minimum of 1” tall (The cockpit & frame side are to be measured vertically from where the hood intersects the cab). ...
Here's where I read that the cockpit and frame are separate entities!
... Bodiless vehicles should resemble a 1:1 vehicle.
▪ 2.1.5 - Bodiless vehicles: Must be a self-supporting, structurally complete, rigid frame. ...
Check
...The roof must be raised a minimum of 1” from the main chassis to resemble a cockpit. ...
Still no problems.
... The frame sides must be an overall minimum of 1” tall (The cockpit & frame side are to be measured vertically from where the hood intersects the cab). ...
Here's where I read that the cockpit and frame are separate entities!
... Bodiless vehicles should resemble a 1:1 vehicle.
EGRESSor
RCC Addict
i think it´s not so grey
BC Brians construction looks not like a frame to me
and it´s not a "unibody"
no bodiless frame , no unibody
so it´s a bodied rig :ror:
IF he cuts out the windows then it pretty much resembles a frame. So whats the difference if the windows stay in?
ROWDY RACING
I wanna be Dave
Then what's the difference if he leaves the hood and doors on?
krawlfreak
I wanna be Dave
when you take out all percieved notions and perceptions, brians truck is by the very words in the rules legal..
no grey area, just cold hard facts. it meets every rule in the bodiless catagory with a yes.
for the hell of it,
structurally complete can be argued down to the molecular level where all the items in his truck are now structurally complete.
no grey area, just cold hard facts. it meets every rule in the bodiless catagory with a yes.
for the hell of it,
structurally complete can be argued down to the molecular level where all the items in his truck are now structurally complete.
EGRESSor
RCC Addict
whats the difference to any other lexan body ?
The original tubers and 1:1's have a structure that is permanently assembled and are designed to be used as a whole assembly.
I'm relatively sure that if you wanted to compete in a vehicle that had its upper cage torched off, they'd turn you away. Sometimes ducking isn't enough. :ror:
Considering what it is made from, the windows keep the top from being crushed when it lands on its top.
It still has no effect on the functionality of the chassis. Crushed or not, it would plug along just fine. Why? Because it is not a structural part of the chassis.
Like I said to Jeremy, be careful what you say. What the rules say and what they intend to prevent or allow are not always crystal clear. By the very words of the rule, anyone could bolt nearly any body they want onto any regular old chassis and have it be considered a bodiless rig. If that happens, there would be no reason to have a bodied classification at all.
Most people understand the difference between a bodied rig and a bodiless rig. Whether the top of a bodiless rig is polycarbonate, delrin, aluminum, oak, paper mache, or concrete changes nothing. If the top is not a structurally integral part of the chassis as a whole, it is a body.
EvilTwin v2
I wanna be Dave
Exactly.
C*H*U*D
No idea what I'm doing
And why all of a sudden are we having a hard time with this definition?
Harvo
I wanna be Dave
When bodiless first took off... there was this
Then someone raised a stink that it was too narrow... so a rule was made that a bodiless had to be 3" wide without the use of bolt on rails or by measuring shock mounts.
Isn't that the primary reason cabs came off the chassis and became seperate pieces in the first place? To make a truck legal width without screwing up the skid and lower geometry?
Then someone raised a stink that it was too narrow... so a rule was made that a bodiless had to be 3" wide without the use of bolt on rails or by measuring shock mounts.
Isn't that the primary reason cabs came off the chassis and became seperate pieces in the first place? To make a truck legal width without screwing up the skid and lower geometry?
rock hard
dnf
I have waited to post up, reading and absorbing the many points of views.
I dont see the problem at all, other than some poeple dont like it, and think its illegal, even though its not, and there is no wording too suggest it is.
despite what some have suggested, saying that its not structuraly rigid.
Well there is variations in rigidity, fortunatly mine is stiffer on some mornings than usual:ror:
an unbrella is both rigid and structural, as is a tent, no matter the quality of materials used. Though some are clearly more structurally capablel than others by design and materail.
I think its sad that people have to piss and moan whenever someone reads the rules and for whatever reason, is able visualise, or interpprete them in a may that has not yet been done.
This truck is bodiless, the cab is a material borrowed, used from a lexan body.
I dont see why any rules need to be changed
I do however think alot of people need to go out and get a piece and relax, its the holidays and inlaws suck we know, stop taking it out on a creative peice of work thats legal, go take it out on some strange instead.
I dont see the problem at all, other than some poeple dont like it, and think its illegal, even though its not, and there is no wording too suggest it is.
despite what some have suggested, saying that its not structuraly rigid.
Well there is variations in rigidity, fortunatly mine is stiffer on some mornings than usual:ror:
an unbrella is both rigid and structural, as is a tent, no matter the quality of materials used. Though some are clearly more structurally capablel than others by design and materail.
I think its sad that people have to piss and moan whenever someone reads the rules and for whatever reason, is able visualise, or interpprete them in a may that has not yet been done.
This truck is bodiless, the cab is a material borrowed, used from a lexan body.
I dont see why any rules need to be changed
I do however think alot of people need to go out and get a piece and relax, its the holidays and inlaws suck we know, stop taking it out on a creative peice of work thats legal, go take it out on some strange instead.
Last edited:
